1. Field of the Invention
The instant invention relates generally to the field of dentistry, and more specifically to matrices, wedges, and methods of using the same.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Systems of the past have been used to close off a hole or trench made for the purpose of receiving a filling in an object tooth. Such a trench needs to be closed off when it extends to an outer periphery of the tooth in order to prevent flow of the filling material to the adjacent tooth. Thus, in filling a tooth, a dentist often uses a shim or matrix to block the flow of a filling material from an object tooth. As such, the matrix is utilized to retain the filling within the normal boundaries of the object tooth where it is generally spaced from the adjacent tooth.
Matrices of the past comprise generally flat barriers that are held against the object tooth and gums by small wooden or plastic wedges. These wedges are difficult to use, cause discomfort or pain, and tend to damage the tissue of the gums. Furthermore, since the matrices of the past tend to be relatively rigid, they do not adequately seal the gingival margin along the tooth. Thus, the wedge and matrix combinations of the past are deficient in providing an adequate seal with the tooth, in avoiding damage to the gum tissue, in providing a comfortable treatment for the patient, and in assuring sealing of the gingival margin.
An alternative to wedge-type devices is a spring-loaded matrix system ring, which may or may not be used in conjunction with the wedges described above. The spring-loaded matrix system uses rings to clamp the matrix on an end face of a tooth. Once again, these rings are expected to provide both sealing and stabilization of the matrix. The degree to which these rings effectively seal the gingival margin depends upon the angle at which tines of the rings engage the matrix. Furthermore, these rings act as rather stiff springs and are hard and abrasive. Thus, the spring-loaded matrix systems of the past fall short of what is required because they do not adequately provide a comfortable and consistent means for holding the matrix in a surrounding relationship to the tooth.
Both of the systems mentioned above are rather unnatural and can be highly irritating to the gum tissues. The elements utilized in the systems are hard and highly invasive. Thus, the prior art is deficient in providing a soft, effective, and comfortable means for supporting the matrix in a consistently sealed relationship with the tooth.
As can be appreciated, both of the means for stabilizing and sealing a matrix discussed above are directed more to point-type supports. They each support the matrix against the tooth and gums of the patient at specific points or locations on the matrix. As such, the systems of the past are deficient in providing a flexible hoop-type support that applies forces to a matrix along a continuous line. These systems of the past require a plurality of individual pieces and many steps in the placement process.